Skip to main content

ROBINSON v. NEW MEXICO US UNM LA LNU LLC (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Deborah Sant ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of NEW MEXICO; Social Security Administration; US Department of Energy; Geraldine Sanchez, Clerk of Santa Fe County; Alan Weber, The Mayor of Santa Fe; St. Vincent Christus Regional Hospital; Life Link Housing and Services; Los Alamos Association of Realtors, Board and Members; Los Alamos Medical Center; University of New Mexico, UNM-LA; Tim Keller, The Mayor of Albuquerque; Linda Stover, Clerk of Bernalillo County; Jaivair LNU, Mayor of Espanola; Moises Molias; Los Alamos National Security LLC; New Mexico Hearings Bureau, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-2179

Decided: June 28, 2019

Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. Deborah Sant Robinson, Pro Se

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Ms. Deborah Sant Robinson appeals the dismissal of this case. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

The federal statutes governing removal allow a defendant in a state court action to remove a state court case to federal court in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. Ms. Robinson removed five cases to federal court. As the district court correctly explained, none of the cases were removable. In two of the cases, Ms. Robinson was the plaintiff; and plaintiffs are not entitled to remove cases to federal court. See Hamilton v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 5 F.3d 642, 643 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“No section [of the United States Code] provides for removal by a plaintiff.”); see also 14C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3730 (Rev. 4th. ed. 2018) (stating that “plaintiffs cannot remove” cases to federal court). A third case was already in federal court. And the other two cases were pending in administrative bodies rather than a state court. See Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus. ex rel. Richardson v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc., 288 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We therefore hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) does not authorize removal of proceedings from an administrative agency․”).

Despite the explanation, Ms. Robinson appealed. She disregarded the district court’s explanation and failed to provide a meaningful argument for reversal. In the absence of a meaningful argument, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (stating the standard for legal frivolousness).

Given the absence of a nonfrivolous argument for reversal, we also deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (requiring inability to pay and a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument in support of the issues on appeal). We thus order Ms. Robinson to pay the filing fees of $505.00.1

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ms. Robinson is to pay these fees to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Robert E. Bacharach, Circuit Judge

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law
ROBINSON v. NEW MEXICO US UNM LA LNU LLC (2019)

Docket No: No. 18-2179

Decided: June 28, 2019

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard